Posted on 08/14/2005 8:06:45 AM PDT by CarlEOlsoniii
Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are central to the debate over the theory of evolution.
The Harvard project, which is likely to start with about $1 million annually from the university, will bring together scientists from fields as disparate as astronomy and biology, to understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets.
Known as the ''Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative," the project is still in its early stages, and fund-raising has not begun, the scientists said.
But the university has promised the researchers several years of seed money, and has asked the team to make much grander plans, including new faculty and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.
The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of ''intelligent design," who argue that even the most modest cell is too complex, too finely tuned, to have come about without unseen intelligence.
President Bush recently said intelligent design should be discussed in schools, along with evolution. Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.
Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances -- such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth -- the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You're right - Darwinism has no comment on the origins of life. That's another subject.
Evolution does, however, accurately describe what happened to that life. In two hundred years of trying, anti-Darwinists have not been able to come up with their own theory that addresses the evidence in anything remotely close to the scientific method. Wonder why that is?
Hey, I live in Massachusetts, and if we can elect a republican governor, then I'd say Harvard has nothing to worry about, generally speaking of course.
Word mean things. "Theory" means what it means.
The fact that the definition doesn't fit your own personal politics doesn't make it "Orwellian" - your attempt to pretend the word doesn't mean what it does is what's Orwellian.
But then, if creationists were really interested in scientific truth they wouldn't be creationists.
[such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth ]
There have been a few popular speculations in the last few years that the complex "ingredients" of early life were delivered to Earth from comet or asteroid impacts and not built up from chemicals in an "organic soup" that already existed on Earth.
Is this a major question that this Harvard initiative will consider, or are they going to assume by default a purely terrestrial origin?
Well, since you posted it right here on FR for the whole world to see, I'm sure you're going to give an example or two of some of your evidence that these disciples you speak of are refusing to look at...
For better or for worse, the word "theory" can entail either certitude or lack thereof. The former is typically understood by the scientific community, while the latter by common usage. Since evolutionism relies largely upon unobserved, unrecorded history, I tend to place it under the latter meaning. But then again, there may be someone around here who observed the formation of the world 4.5 billion years ago (and counting). You never know.
Don't hold your breath.
Yeah, evolution accurately describes the fossil record as we know it...
Evolution describes a fossil record replete with transitional forms - unfortunately this fossil record does not exist.
"Since evolutionism relies largely upon unobserved, unrecorded history, I tend to place it under the latter meaning."
Then your understanding of the evidence for evolution is sadly lacking. You may wish to review the evidence, starting with Darwin's observations, before rejecting them out of hand.
The scientific community has approached the theory with great skepticism. The fact that it is a "theory" at all shows how strong the evidence is for it - it's the only theory that fits.
Oh, but it does. It's not complete, to be sure, but there's worlds more evidence to support evolution than anything else.
There's zero scientific evidence to support creationism, for example. None at all. Evolution has evidence to support it, where creationism has only ignorance.
You're definitely wrong about the fossil record not existing but your comment begs the question, do you know of any fossils that disprove evolution?
It's not so much my lack of understanding of the evidence for evolution as it is your incapacity to recognize and acknowlege the fact that you subscribe to a set of assumptions under which any evidence can be catalogued as supportive, and therefore "scientific."
A pile of evidence does not make for good science. Direct observation, testing, and repeated testing does. In that regard evoltuionism is SOL. Tell your friends at Harvard and see if they'll listen.
It is by no means a fact that evolutionism is a "theory" in the scientific sense. It is a fact that a great number of would-be scientists wish dearly it were so. Wishes, no matter how well educated, resourceful, and eloquent, do not make for sound science. Neither does creationism.
They were engaging in something called "irony". It is ironic that they are going to push the boundaries of knowledge further out at the same time that the forces of ignorance are trying to gain the upper hand in the schools.Actually jennyp, it was the Boston Globe's interpretation:
The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of ''intelligent design,"...
The scientific method allows for objective methodical investigation and testing of hypotheses based on "known",measurable,data only. Yet the scientific method can only carry one as far as the instruments can measure.
The flaw in the scientific method is the process by which data is organized inductively(by means of "inspiration","intuition", or some other mysterious A Priori bias that has been glossed over to sound "objectively mysterious and scientific")into a cogent workable scientific theory.
In two hundred years adherents of evolution have not been able to posit a strong enough theory that would effectively over come the "so called" religious view on the origins and development of life. Simply labeling adherents of a God centered view as having too strong a religious bias leaves those doing the labeling open to charge of bias them-selves.
We can't go back in time to see what really happened despite the best planned experiments that attempt to deductively show what might have happened X years ago.
Put down your evo-talking-points. You talk as though there are only two options: pretend the currently known fossil record reflects what Darwinism predicts or biblical literalism interpretations of the origin of life must be true. You are making a common evo mistake - finding problems with one theory does not support or disprove another theory. Also evidence supporting evolution can NEVER disprove any theory of creation because the theory of evolution does not in any way address the creation of life.
Creationism (the plethora of theories, myths and explainations evo's like to wrap up into one bigoted term) addresses the creation of life (thus the name) - evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life so your comment is a non sequitur.
Also the "there is worlds more evidence to support [insert theory here] than anything else" is not scientific proof, it is faith. Not to mention there is pretty much zero evidence to support an evolution-extrapolated theory of the origin of life which happens to be the subject of this thread.
Sounds like you might be engaging is something called "mind-reading" to support your conclusion. Who knows - you might be right - but unless you wrote this article or are personal friends with the person who did...well....
There's zero scientific evidence to support creationism, for example. None at all. Evolution has evidence to support it, where creationism has only ignorance.
The origin of life...which incidentally has zero empirical evidence, either scientifically or theologically...and evolution, are two different concepts, and incompatible for comparison.
Get with the program and stop making a fool of yourself.
I don't know whether to count it as interesting or downright unlucky that all the transitional forms (if indeed there are any) must be relegated to a fossil record. What do you think? Shall we argue from extinction and thus add the to the great pile of evidence that as yet excludes direct observation, testing, repeatability and such?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.